Run a constrained verification command

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing fingerprinting behavior, potential for spawning processes, network access, and destructive file mutations. It clearly states that detected mutations cause verification failure, adding significant behavioral context not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and security context; the second covers the alternative. No redundant or unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, open-world), annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers the core concept and security implications but lacks detail on remaining parameters and return behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand usage without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially. It implies the 'command' parameter for the action and 'noTestsEvidence' for the alternative, but does not explain 'taskId' or 'timeoutMs', nor their constraints. The meaning added is minimal and incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it executes a planned test/lint/check/build command, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on execution and includes an alternative action for no-test evidence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (for running verification commands from an untrusted repository) and mentions an alternative within the tool (recording no-test evidence). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like inspect_repository or final_gate, so usage guidance is good but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.